THE CONTINUING AND TROUBLING MARITIME HELICOPTER PROJECT SAGA

Well the Cyclone Maritime Helicopter program hums along in secrecy worthy of a “black” project, raising what critics say are new questions about public accountability and tax dollars.

As you may recall the program has fallen two years behind schedule and will cost Canadians $117 million extra…..and there is little information on what Canadians will get for that money. In addition, Defence Minister Peter MacKay has waived the $36 million fine the government could have levied against Sikorsky for late delivery; again with little explanation.

I asked NDHQ for a couple of things in early January; one was to speak to the Maritime Helicopter project manager and if that individual could not do the interview, then an explanation why not? The second thing I requested was for the name of the project manager.

As you could imagine, I got no where. I did receive an email from public affairs official Lianne Lebel that “an interview is not possible at this time.”

No explanation, of course, why not.

And no response on who is heading this program that some critics say is a disaster in the making.

I’m told that Colonel Doug Baker (retired?) has assumed the job of Maritime Helicopter Project manager….but DND is totally silent on this issue for some strange reason. It’s all so hush hush…..which only adds to the questions about just what is going on in that troubled program?

The new angle that DND is taking….and you can see it from the NDHQ public affairs mole who posted on the an earlier entry here (re the Auditor General will not examine the MHP program) is that the extra money being spent is not all that much when it comes to the overall project; that $117 million is only a 2.3 per cent increase.

However others in the defence community are pointing out that the Crown signed a contract specifying a certain type of aircraft from Sikorsky with a delivery date at a specific time. None of this is being met, as per the contract, and there is no specific explanation of why not.

Any ways, I asked some aerospace folks I know to look over the canned emailed answer that NDHQ/AMD Mat/Public Works public affairs sent to me in regards to what exactly is being done for the $117 million ……….We’ll see if they can decipher them. I’ll run part 1 today and part 2 tomorrow.

CANNED NDHQ ANSWER: “The Maritime Helicopter Project is a large and complex military procurement involving a major contractor and many subcontractors. In complex military projects such as this one, it is not uncommon to encounter delays. The project is also unique because the helicopters must be tailored specifically to operate effectively aboard Canadian Forces Navy ships for military roles and missions both at home and abroad.”

AND WHAT DOES THIS REALLY MEAN, ACCORDING TO AEROSPACE SPECIALISTS I CONSULTED? HERE IS WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY:

“The statement that is not uncommon to encounter delays is true when applied to the procurement of DEVELOPMENTAL equipment. The MHP was established as an OFF-THE-SHELF (OTS) procurement requiring an absolute minimum of development in order to preclude the very delay (at least 4 years) that is now being realized. Under the original contract, the first fully capable MH was required to be delivered in November 2008. Under the amended contract the first fully capable MH does not appear until 2012. OTS procurements such as the C-17 or CSH have not experienced similar delays. PWGSC and DND knew full well at the time that the Cyclone was selected that it did not exist as a naval variant had never operated from a ship or floating platform before. In fact, when the Cyclone was selected, none of the civilian S-92A helicopters upon which the design was to be based had been delivered to any customer. In the response, PWGSC/DND has also neglected to mention that, when Sikorsky submitted its MHP bid to Canada, it provided a Proposal Certification signed under UTC Corporate Seal stating that it would have no problem delivering a fully capable and ship-compatible MH within 4 years of signing the contract.”

This Week's Flyers

Comments

We encourage all readers to share their views on our articles and blog posts. We are committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion, so we ask you to avoid personal attacks, and please keep your comments relevant and respectful. If you encounter a comment that is abusive, click the "X" in the upper right corner of the comment box to report spam or abuse. We are using Facebook commenting. Visit our FAQ page for more information.